It's partiality to player expectations outside of the bounds of hard-coded rules. I'm not going to fudge a die or pull a punch, but I'm going to modify events if the players bring up an idea that doesn't contradict the rules, rather than denying them simply because a possibility wasn't covered. If that's not relevant to your inquiry I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Hey, if it feels relevant to you, that's fine. I'm not a cop. I just see the issues as separate.
The Sith have done well in the universe.Palpatine literally encouraged folks to turn to the dark side, which is the easy path to power!
Nor Jason Todd.And even Bucky didn't stay dead.
No offense, but not really. I don't want to derail the conversations happening.
By that token it is far more "interesting" that 5e has shifted the Overton window equivalent for player agency to such an extreme degree that people talking about running enjoyable games for their players get openly accused of "tap-dancing around using the term railroading"?It's interesting to me that almost every reply in this thread is quietly tapdancing around the term railroad.
As for my answer, I feel like I am very much for the players. When there is time, I try to curate the story around them, giving each of them a chance to shine; interweave their backstory into the setting. But I am a fan of consequences in all pillars of the game: social, exploration, and combat.
That window of discourse is not what I meant. I think you knew that.
(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
